Currently I am in the process of getting the parts for a new AMD Bulldozer build. Any ideas on how well this would run BF3? My goal is to be able to max it out, if anyone has any changes that will help that I would be grateful.

So it costs AT LEAST an extra $600 to be able to run BF3 on PC? With no idea of how well that HD 6770 will actually be able to handle BF3 and at what graphics settings? I think I would rather just spend a grand total of $0 and play BF3 on my PS3 instead. All my gamer friends are on PS3, and I'm more used to the controller anyway.

Note: I do have a quad-core PC with a GTX 560 Ti (capability to upgrade to SLI in the future), so I probably will have the ability to run BF3 well. But I'll probably just get the game on PS3 first, and then get it on PC when the price drops like a freaking rock in a month or two like every PC game does.

Somehow I missed that card in the list. It's a good alternative, but keep in mind the 2GB Radeon HD 6950 (not the cheaper 1GB version) outperforms the GeForce GTX 560 in 60-70% of gaming benchmarks, even the ones in NVIDIA's TWIMTBP program.

Currently I am in the process of getting the parts for a new AMD Bulldozer build. Any ideas on how well this would run BF3? My goal is to be able to max it out, if anyone has any changes that will help that I would be grateful.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not since you seem to have top-of-the-line parts in your build.
I have no idea if you'll be able to max out the settings, mainly because I haven't had hands-on time with the game and you haven't listed your display's resolution. You'll certainly be able to play with a single GPU, and you'll have a really good experience with it. The only real question is whether any settings have to be reduced. I'm guessing at 1920x1080 the answer is "not many".
The only way to improve your hardware list right now is to use an SSD for Windows and programs. You could also add a second GPU, but it may not produce enough of a gain on a single display to justify the extra cost.

So it costs AT LEAST an extra $600 to be able to run BF3 on PC? With no idea of how well that HD 6770 will actually be able to handle BF3 and at what graphics settings? I think I would rather just spend a grand total of $0 and play BF3 on my PS3 instead. All my gamer friends are on PS3, and I'm more used to the controller anyway.

Note: I do have a quad-core PC with a GTX 560 Ti (capability to upgrade to SLI in the future), so I probably will have the ability to run BF3 well. But I'll probably just get the game on PS3 first, and then get it on PC when the price drops like a freaking rock in a month or two like every PC game does.

Nice try with the troll-bait. The admission of having a sufficient PC after the trash talk is a really nice touch.

Shesshhh I bought a PS3 for $400 and an Xbox for $200, taking into account all the shitty games i've bought and all the controllers(which is 4 btw) and headsets i've gone through, I have spent an upwards of $1000 on console gaming, kind of fucking ironic when the whole reason i decided to go with consoles was because it would be affordable in the long run............now i feel like a dumbass, thanks alot.

Thanks a lot for the response mertesn, I was being quite serious. This is my first real gaming PC build and with all the hype about BF3's graphics and it being so "next gen", top of the line today can be just average tomorrow. My plan was to play at 1920x1080, with at least partial AA/AF going. So I guess I will just stick what I have planned.

Thanks for the response, always helps to have a second opinion. Now I just have to not go crazy as I wait for bulldozer to come out, if it ever does.

I picked up a new PC yesterday for my personal use at the lounge. Figured I'd go ATI for the first time in a long time. Now kicking myself for not going for the extra 1gb of memory for only another $30. I'm sure it'll be OK, the rest of the machine can certainly hang.

while I know it takes a great amount of time to configure these systems, a 320GB hard drive on the $1000 and $1200 systems. I can understand it on the low systems, but your steam folder is bigger than 320GB mertesn

you can easily get a 6950 for $20 cheaper, or go with a 90GB SSD and put that money towards a 1TB hard drive that will not fill up in two weeks

while I know it takes a great amount of time to configure these systems, a 320GB hard drive on the $1000 and $1200 systems. I can understand it on the low systems, but your steam folder is bigger than 320GB mertesn

you can easily get a 6950 for $20 cheaper, or go with a 90GB SSD and put that money towards a 1TB hard drive that will not fill up in two weeks

just an idea

I only presented a few of the many paths. The right path for you is not for me to decide grasshopper.

I found a program a while ago called SteamMover. It moves games from your default steam directory into another drive and then makes a dynamic link to the original location. Very useful and works with almost all of my games.

Yeah, that's how I read it as well. Man, if I had a fast (but relatively small) SSD, I would definitely use something like SteamMover, while keeping the rest on a 7200RPM 2TB drive. Sounds like a smart and handy app.

You can dump your steam apps onto an external drive and just re install Steam and your current play list on an SSD. I recommend it. Once you load Crysis levels in 20 seconds, and Portal 2 levels in about 6 seconds, you won't want to go back to waiting nearly a minute. It's more of a want item than a need, but if you can swing it its nice. It also reduces those little load stutters you might get in a game like Half Life 2. I have not done any testing on minumum frame rates, but some benchmarks claim it can help in that regard on really challenging games. Not doing so much to raise the average over a long session, but say you had a dip to 19 FPS in a gunfight in Crysis, it may be like 22, 23, nothing life changing, but the level load times, definitely a nice perk.

I was wondering about cutting the price with the main Storage (60 gb for 100$), instead running it with a secondary storage for 40$. Is there really any point in buying that main storage for 60gb at first place? In terms of money saving.